Answer seriously. List some examples.
2006-09-05 15:58:17 · 22 answers · asked by Luekas 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, lets see ...
We were told that we would be greeted with open arms.
We were told that it would cost less than a billion dollars.
We were told that it would be funded by Iraqi oil.
We were told that there was a connection between Iraq and
Alchaida
We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction there.
2006-09-05 16:02:37 · answer #1 · answered by Elana 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
We're being lied to because its not a war. It was a war, now its being run like a police action.
And since the police by nature are not a proactive organization, but rather reactive it is doomed to follow the same path Koreea and Viet Nam did. Unless that is, a decision is made to commit all necessary forces to Iraq and get their government ramped up to function autonomously.
I have no doubt we will have a permanent military presence in Iraq, but right now it is US forces fighting the insurgents, not the Iraqi forces fighting the insurgents and being augmented by US troops.
2006-09-05 23:14:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We aren't.
The US has actually uncovered chemical weapons in Iraq (WMDs). Theoretically, if there were no WMDs, we still weren't lied to. Both Clintons, Hans Blix (weapons inspector), Kerry, and many others as well as Bush all said that Saddam had WMDs. No one was decieved, except by Saddam. The way he did not cooperate said that he was hiding something. We could not inspect sites without notifying Saddam. Trucks would show up to sites on the list hours before they were to be inspected and leave minutes before. There are satellite photos of convoys driving into Syria days before the invasion began. All signs point to hiding WMDs.
The war in Iraq is not about oil. If we wanted Iraqi oil, we could have just garunteed Saddam a lift in the sanctions in return for lots of oil. France, China, and Russia all had lots of oil lined up from Saddam for after the sanctions were lifted. The vetos were about oil.
Iraq may not have ties to 9/11, but Saddam certianly had ties to terror, whether he was secular or not. He paid Palestinian suicide bomber' families tens of thoundsands of dollars and increased the amount prior to the invasion. Al-Zarqawi had al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq. Sounds like harboring and supporting terrorists to me.
If I find any more "lies," I will add to my answer.
Edit:
We were greeted as liberators when we first entered Iraq. There were people celebrating in the streets and toppling Saddam's statues. The people did not like Saddam. The problems came when we were not adequately equipped to win the peace. Iraq's infastructure was weaker than anticipated. Saddam barely had the basics working, but they were working. We weren't able to get water and power back quickly enough. That was our mistake. After that, it was the fault of some Iraqis and the influx of foreign fighters for creating the current situation.
Also, the others are right. While we may not be directly lied to by the mainstream media, they are certainly leaving a lot out and reporting "facts" that can't be substantiated and often are incorrect, this is just as bad.
2006-09-06 00:00:52 · answer #3 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"We'll put more troops on the ground if the commanders request them." Except that Rumsfeld controls this decision, not the generals, and the generals know enough to not ask for something Rumsfeld does not agree to.
Things are really quite good in Iraq, but the media is making it look like things are awful. (I.e., it's the media's fault.)
We're in a battle against fascism just like we were against Nazi Germany and Hitler. (Just read any scholar to see how the term fascism is not appropriate, and serves to cynically and dishonestly bolster the administration's position)
We're there to instill democracy as a model for the rest of the area and because democratic governments are peace-loving. (Really? Is a democracy incapable of electing a government that will wage war? Wasn't Lebanon a democracy?)
Terrorists hate us because of our freedoms and our democracy . Really? They certainly hate our policies in the mideast, but the evidence is quite the opposite about them envying our values and political institutions.
These are some of the current lies and/or distortions, or political machinations. I haven't mentioned the obvious earlier ones such as the expected cost of the war, the presence of WMDs, the intention to seek diplomatic solutions, etc.
2006-09-06 00:34:49 · answer #4 · answered by JustAsking 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Has anyone let you know that it has descended into a true civil war? No? They lied, then.
Do you know that soldiers still have extreme shortages of Hummers, vests, and other supplies? No? They lied, then.
Do you know that infrastructure conditions in Baghdad and all over the country are STILL ten times worse than when Saddam Hussein was in power? No? They lied, then.
Do you know that the Iraqi forces are no more ready to take over responsibility for security than they were 3 years ago? No? They lied, then.
Did you know that Britain has established a pullout schedule and that the US has no plan in place to handle that? No? They lied, then.
All that is being said that indicates a positive trend is a boldface lie. The situation is worse than gloomy, it is a gritty, bloody, stalemate of loss for all sides.
2006-09-05 23:04:18 · answer #5 · answered by nora22000 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
GWB and and company never understood the Iraq system, I mean how it works down there, and they just accused Sadam of having weapons of mass distruction which he did not have at that particular time.
So they lied to the American people by not telling them that they just wanted Sadam out of power becouse Bush and his men balieved that an Iraq without Sadam will be saffer for u.s interest, but instead they deviced that weapons of mass distruction strategy that never represented the fact for going to war in Iraq.
2006-09-05 23:58:35 · answer #6 · answered by G.I noel 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In the same ways we're being lied to about almost everything else that's being reported on. Objective journalism is a thing of the past, I'm afraid. Just turn on the t.v., and take a look at any news report & judge for yourself.
2006-09-05 23:05:03 · answer #7 · answered by Shadow 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not a war, congress did not declare war with Iraq it is an occupation of someones country. Even Bush last week stated that 911 and Iraq are not connected.
2006-09-05 23:07:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If you watch the news on TV, you're being lied to. It's a lie of omission, but a lie all the same. I'm sure there is "spin" on both sides, but the news media is most guilty.
2006-09-05 23:02:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
BEST EXAMPLE (LIE)
WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION
When will the Repugliscums wake up
and realize Bushie has LIED to them?!!!
Bush ONLY started HIS war on the Iraqi CITIZENS...
Cuz that bad, mean man tried to kill his daddy...
Latest Zogby Poll Reveals Republicans Believe Lies, Fearmongering and Support the Dismantling of the Constitution: "GOPers back U.S. war on terror, wiretapping, and Saddam's role in 9/11." Let's be Blunt and Candid,
The Republicans are Stupid and Unpatriotic.
2006-09-05 23:02:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋